why make a public issue of the kjb

7/29/2019 Why Make a Public Issue of the KJB

1/22

EDITOR'SNOTES

Why Make Public the lssuof the King James BibleThrs ns not an lssue ofpreferencc" Th[s ns thenssue of the Bnbfle!God's Ho[y, Fnesenved,ilnspnred Word!

I grew up in church and in Fundamentalism. My fatherI ;"r ..ry purro, from the age of 8 until I was 21 years old.t (My father died of cancer when he was 40 years old). Iknow the frustrations and feelings of hearing an attack on apreacher or institution fiom someone disgruntled. I never likedit and I do not like it now. I do not associate with people whoare given to criticism and division. I am not making this issuepublic because I dislike Dr. Jack Schaap or Hyles-AndersonCollege. I have been influenced by HAC and Dr. Hyles mostof my life. I received and honorary doctorate from HAC in1995. Dr. Hyles preached in my church 7 different years. Ialso have supported Dr. Schaap as the pastor of First BaptistChurch.Yet, this is not an issue of a preference. This is the issue of theBible! God's Holy Preserved Word! So often we look atsomeone who responds to an issue as the one who caused theproblem and forget the source that actually did cause theproblem. I did not bring up this issue - Dr. Schaap broughtthis issue up by his writing and teaching.I must say that I prefer problems being dealt with head on andnot in a round about way. I did not want to write articleswhere people would say, "Who is he talking about?" I want tobe forthright in the purpose of this special edition'At Pastor's School in 2008 I received my copy of the book"Where are we going?" and read with somewhat of confusionthe chapter about the KJB issue. Dr. Schaap also taught thisduring the Tuesday moming session of Pastor's School 2008.While it bothered me I worked to dismiss it as an unwise2

presentation about the hurt of division in fundamental Bchurches. I dismissed what he said as something thaterribly worded and that would soon be corrected. It didsome doubt in my mind as to where Dr. Schaap stood oKing James Version. It seemed he was saying that inothing more than a good translation but was in fact lessthe "originals". I also concluded that he was trying to dthe difference in Inspiration and Preservation but withwonder of what he thought we have lost in preservationAs I read and listened I wondered who were the "friendshave lost by taking a stand for the King James Bible. I very well where Dr. Hyles had taken his stand on the iseven calling names of institutions that referred to the origas inspired but did not believe that we have an everyBible in the King James Version. Dr. Hyles pointed out pthat there was a difference in using only the KJB bubelieving that it was in fact an every word bible ! He sepafrom those institutions and told us not to be surprised bbeing loyal to principles rather than institutions. You cahis quotes in this issue. I certainly did not lose any frover the issue - though I did find out that there werewho never believed in the promises of God aboupreservation and inspiration of the Scriptures.Here is where the problem escalated and more disturbinghave been revealed since. In November 2008 weprofessor from Hyles Anderson as a guest to give lechere at Commonwealth Baptist College. I do not want to him the issue because he is a good man and very wise area of experlise (His subject to teabh this day had nothdo with the Bible - It was not a theological lecture atlove him and appreciate him for his work.By the way, we have had folks from Hyles Anderson Coand First Baptist Church in our college chapels and cbecause I have wanted to maintain a good friendshipthem. I want to leam from them. Dr. Wendall Evansfriend and has been our guest here at CBC and our cmore than once. Dr. Jim Jorgensen is our executivepresident who served Dr. Hyles at HAC for 20+Evangelists from First Baptist Church have been our gDr. Russell Anderson is the co-founder of our college as


2/22

He and I are dear fi'iends - both of us are from the Mountainregion of Southeastern Kentuck.v'. Dr. Antier.son is a ntembe rol'our church and has an apartlnenl hcre in l_exington. IIeand I preach together here in Kentucky as well as in churchesacross America. I have six men on staff here in our ministrieswho are graduates of Hyles-Anderson College.This prof'essor, in a class of more than 100 stu


3/22

JAGK HYLES ON THEKING JAMES BIBLEThe brggest spflnt that hasever c@nnc wn[[ G@nne nn thenext ten ycatrs, nf not

s@@netre @vctr the KnngJames Bob[c,",

he following quotes were taken from Jack Hyles'sbook, The Need for An Every-Word Bible (HylesPublications, 2003).*He taught that the King James Bible is inspired.*He taught that it is wrong to say that only the originalswere inspired.

Pages 137-140"Still another crowd says,'The Bible was only inspired inthe original.'...When a church says in their articles of faith,'We believe that the word of God was inspired in the originallanguage,' then the average person in that church thinks thatmaybe the originals have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls'This belief is not true. ...If the only place in the world wherewe have a word-for-word inspired Bible is in the originals,that means that today there is no book that contains thervords of God. ...Theologians have ruined this country. It isvery popular to say, 'In the original, it says...'There is nooriginal to look at."

Page 48"The self-acclaimed intelligentsia and the self-acclaimedtheologians...like to call those of us who believe in a God-breathed Bible ignoramuses.

Pages 154-155"Don't come to me with your, 'Only the original is inspired."'4

Page 78"Paul didn't believe that the prophets were inspiredoriginals; he believed that they were inspired then. ..had no original manuscripts in Peter's day, in Paul'sin Timothy's day. That means that the Scripture they h'is given by inspiration of God."'(See the restparagraph.)

Pages 20,25,31"We have heard all of our lives about the inspired WGod...Where is that Book? ...I musthave that Book.only two choices: The Catholic Bible kept in the Cchurch or the King James Bible...The King James Bthe only logical choice."

Page72"In II Tim. 3:16, the Word of God is called inspired.God give word-for-word inspiration to one generathought inspiration to another generation?"

Page 11"suppose someone says that he believes the words are iin the original manuscripts...If the only place where thof God are inspired are in the originals, and we horiginals, then we have no words of Gqd, unless, in fahas preserved His words somewhere."

Page 54"The biggest split that has ever come will come in theyears, if not sooner, over the King James Bible, and it ccome soon enough for me. I'm tired of colleges and univadvertising that they use the King James Bible. Tell thstory! Tell everyone that you do ngt believe that it is inword for word. .." See also page 66 and chapter 5

Page 31"The theologians say that only the original manuscriptsthe perfect words of God."

Page 28"The King James Bible is God's work,. .God is the Au


4/22

the Kin_g Jantes Bible, and nten are the authors of the otherbooks."Page 62"l w ill not give my loyalty to institLrtions. I will give my loyaltyto principles und support the institutions that embrace th.scprinciples...Don't be surprised because I've dropped rtryloi,alt_v to some irrstitutions...A new gerreration ,ri yuungri'hippersnappers who didn,t f ight the war have cortre on thescene...To me that is like teenagers rebelling against their

parents to have their own thinking ancj not embracinq rvhahanded down to them by somebody else."Page 122"There's more to the King Jarncs Bible issue thun it bune hindependent Baptist fbndanrentalists trying to cause a rucku


5/22

7P

INRO

EALLIBLEoFsThe word of God whte{nooiluvcth and abtdethfoneveP'was finsptned,

ns nmspnned and wu[[ benmspnned, fonev@r"

he following is abridged from a chapter in the upcomingencyclopedic book by G.A. Riplinger, Greek andHebrew Study Dangers: The Voice of Strangers, Th t,Men Behind the Sntokescreen, Burning Bibles Worcl b_tWord (printing Summer 2009; preview e-book now availablcfiom A.V. Publications 1 -800-435-4535)."Liveth and Abideth For Ever,,Your Holy Bible is alive - handle with care!

". . .not of comrptible seed, but ofincorruptible, by the word of God whichliveth and abideth for ever" (l pet. 1:23)."The words that I speak unto you, they arespirit, and they are life" (John 6:63).". . . who received the lively oracles to giveunto us" (Acts 7:38)."For the word of God is quick...,' [TheBible contrasts the "quick and the dead,, ZTim.4:ll.

"Liveth," But Where?If the word of God liveth and abideth forever, where is it? Theactual 'originals' have not been the recipient of the promise ofpreservation, as they have long since dissolved. As isdemonstrated in detail in the previous chapters of Greek andHebrew Study Dangers, all currently printed Greek and6

Hebrew editions contain en'ors. Thrs includes even smallin currently available good one-man editions of the leReceptus and the Masoretic text, such as Scrivener's (BGeorge Ricker Berry's G re e k- E n g I i s h I n t e r I i n e ar, ZodhGreek Orthodox text, Jay p. Green's texts, and the TrinitBible Society's Hebrew Old Testament. The answer rquestion,'Where is this living word of God'lies in Gpromise given in Isaiah 28 and fulfilled in Acts 2."With men of other tongues and other lipswilllspeak...saiththeLord"(l Cor. t4:21).

In this verse God says, "I speak" ..other tongues.,, Xthat the words "other tongues" are plural. Vernacular Bare God speaking, just as truly as he did to the GreeksHebrews. The still small voice of the Spirit has nor diminisas he speaks wirh "other tongues. " He is still speakrng. TodHoly Bibles, be they English or Korean, are nol just presemuseum words or accurate but lifeless equivalencies, thehis very "spirit" and "life." Jesus said, .,The words tspeak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6They contain just as much of the spint and Iife of God athe originals. The word of God which ..liveth and abiforever" was inspired, is inspired and will be inspired forThe inherent "spirit" and "life" 9f scripture are what enait to bring forth the spiritual new birth. Only living thcan reproduce themselves. I peter l:23 says, ..Beingagain, not of corruptible seed, but of incomrptible, byword of God, which liveth and abideth forever." It'.livejust as Jesus said; his words "are...life." We can hidescripture in our hearts (Ps. 119:11); we can handle it (24:2):\tis nigh us, even in our mourh (Rom. I0:g). And finawe will be judged by it (John t2:48). Its lit-e is'.incomrptib

It is alive. The Holy Bible is actually God taiking now,.Toads'lungs are living breathing things. Why would Ccontinue to make them perfectly, to breathe out only a crof toad's breath, and not make the vemacular Bibles as awhich speak his very words? Or did rhe Bible croak? Nversions are buried when their copyright owner dies, sthey are no longer propelled by the hor air of advertiscampaigns.The King James Bible remains alive; its English words w


6/22

drawn from the inspired "Scriptures in tongues," as Wycliffecalls them, which were born in Acts 2. The KJB is the BiblicalEnglish through which God can speak ro the 2 billion peoplewho speak English as a flrst or second language. They are fti.rEnglish words. Remember, he invented languages at the towerof Babel; he also said, "l speak" "other tongues." Earlier hespoke a Biblical fbrm of Koine Greek to many in the firstcenturies afier Christ. The book of Revelation records thewarning Christ gave to the Greek-speaking church: Theircandlestick (that is, their church which holds forth the light ofthe word of God) would be removed if they did not repent.The unorthodox character of the Greek Orthodox church sincelhe 5'r' century exhibits its continued rebellion. This isevidenced in their Greek manuscripts which remove such thingsas Acts 8:37, because it reproves their heresy of infant baptism.Therefbre their candlestick was removed. By 600 A.D thisfbrm of ancient Greek was replaced by Modem Greek. Noone today speaks Biblical Koine Greek. We have a living Godwho speaks to living people. God now speaks in purevernacular Holy Bibles which are a direct product of theintervention of the Holy Ghost recorded in Acts 2, as foretoldin Isa.28:11, 13, and 14.'oNory the Spirit Speaketh Expressly..." (1 Tim. 4:1)"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"(2 Tim. 3: 16;.What does "given by inspiration" mean? What is "Allscripture"? These questions will hopefully be resolved for thereader in this section. I will begin with a discussion of theGreek text, only because that is where this discussion usually,lnd I might add, somewhat incorrectly begins. (My analysiswill be Biblical, not from corrupt secularized lexicons, suchrs James Strong, W.E. Vine, S. Zodhiates, Jay Green, Moulton,Milligan, Thayer, Wuest, Trench, Vincent, Liddell, Gesenius,Brown, Driver, and Briggs. These men's heresies are so vile:hat each one merits an entire lengthy chapter in Greek andt{ebrew Studl, Dangers. Their tools, along with therfbrementioned editions of the Greek and Hebrew text, haveriven some the false impression that the KJB has errors, whenLn fact it is these study tools which have the errors. The use ofrooks by these men causes some to doubt the inspiration of:he KJB. Too many are seeing the Bible through the dark lensrf these groping blind men. Some unwisely think that they;rave holy lexicons, not Holy Bibles. The liberal college:lassroom has become a hand-holding sdance with the hereticsrf senerations past, all of whom are somewhat unknown:ntities to most teachers and certainly to all students. Has the:ollege think-tank become the skeptic tank? The Bible says,'not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but whichhe Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with;piritual" ( I Cor. 2:13). A humble man of God and a Bible are

all that is needed to "commit thou to faithful men,' 2 Tim2:2).,Tne Ki'g James Bibles defincs its.wn worcls and its own buirt-in dictionis clcmorrst rated in thc first chapte rs


7/22

the italicized word "is," used in all Bible versions, good andbad, is demanded in English construction. The word "wass.iven" is not even rn option.Warfield Moves the Inspiration Bull's Eye

Jesus Christ is the targel of hatred by this world. Hisliving Spirit-inspired words, which give his express will onthis earth, are the bull's e1te. Christians who stand with Christ'sword at the very bull's eye will not only suffer persecution,but also be subject to a constant barrage of attack. The wordof God brings the same reproach he bore, His word is the onlyvestige on earth of Jesus Christ, other than the Holy Ghostand the testimony of born again Christians. "[W]hentribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word," somemove slightly off center to avoid the unremitting assault ofquestioning scribes and mocking bystanders (Matt. 13:21)'Those edging away from the bull's eye are still 'for Jesus"but the desire not to appear "foolish" finds puffed egos seekingways and means to avoid the "shame" that comes from sayingthat you have a book in which God actually talks to man (Acts5:41,Heb.12:2).The living "powerful" quality of the King James Bible incitessinful men to "mock" and "question" it, just as they did JesusChrist, the living Word, when he was on earth (Mark 10:34'Matt.22:15, Mark 8:11, et al.). The apostles scurried awaywhen Jesus was tried and crucified. When the KJB is likewisetried with accusing questions, even some of the best men scurryunder the cover of a Greek text, some lexicon, or the elusive'originals.'Calvinists such as Carl Barth (1886-1968) and B.B. Warfield( 1851- lg}l), although defending a semblance of traditionalChristianity against German rationalism, were among the frrstto erect imaginary castles to house the word of God, outsideof the tangible 'Holy Bible.' Those, who are under theirinfluence, say that the 'Bible is inspired,' but actually meanthat only the originals or some Greek or Hebrew text isinspired. They are unknowingly practicing Semler's deceptivetheory of accommodation. They are trying to give theimpression of orthodoxy to their listeners or readers. When Iuse the tenn 'Holy Bible' or 'Bible' I mean what every church-going person means and exactly what the dictionary calls the" B ible - the sacred book of Christianity including the Oldand the New Testament." A'book'is defined by Webster as"a set of written or printed pages fastened on an end andenclosed between protective covers"' This describes preciselythe Holy Bible Christians read and have in their homes' A'book' is no where identified as 'dissolved animal skins orparchments which have been written on'; neither is a 'Bible'thought of by anyone as a rare and unreadable Greek text'No living person identifies a 'Bible' as any of these things,8

except perhaps those 'clergy'who, like Humpty Dumpty"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mWhen children and politicians, like Clinton, do this. it is clying.B.B. Warfield was one of the first American theologiadeclare war on the Holy Bible's inspiration. In the 1800American Presbyterian theologian found himself too clothe bull's eye, the Holy Bible. He unwisely positioned himunder a constant barrage of attack in 1876 when he westudy for a year in Leipzig, Germany under the higher crwho denied that God had given man the Bible. There he reabsorbed the l8'h century rationalism of German and 'Enlightenment' philosophers, which exalt human reasorule out revelation as a source of knowledge (e.g'DescaSpinoza, and Leibniz). Compounding this, he was exposthe modemism of Schleiermacher, Hume, and Kant, wflatly deny any miraculous intervention by God. Tphilosophers all redirected their 'faith' from faith in theBible to a taith in man. Such dark naturalistic philosophave cast a lingering shadow over the miraculous natuthe Holy Bible in the minds of even seminary graduatesWarfield sought to merge what he learned in Germanyhis previous conservatism. On one hand Warfield wrote athe rank unbelief of Briggs, the German higher critic and aof the highly corrupt Brown, Driver, and Briggs HeEnglish Lexicon. However, Warfield could not defend thein hand. He did not have a strong enough backgroumanuscript evidence or a humble enough faith in the scripto counter the barrage of textual variants and 'problems'at him in the German classroom. He invented a plan whhe could retain the creed, that stated that'the Bible' is insHe redefined the word 'Bible' for seminary srudents. He mthe locus of inspiration from the Holy Bible to theoriginals.' This "biblical paradigm shifi" by B.B. Wacontravenes every previous beliefand church confessioTurretin c.1687, Westminstet,1646, London Baptistet al.). Warfield could still defend the inspiration of 'thewith vigor, and he did, but he now stated that this inspirelated only to the originals. He was the spokesman fcompromising contemporaries at Princeton who felt thathe originals "were" inspired. A.A. Hodge, son of textuaCharles Hodge, who himself had studied two years in Gerhad planted the seed in Warfield's mind; Warfield'sassociates first put this new heresy in print at the Nconference in 1878.

In order to divest themselves of a living book that contawords of the Spirit of God, today's liberals have adopdistinction between the so-called'originals' and the w


8/22

God extant today in vernacular Holy Bibles. His ,original,idea about the originals has..crept in unaware,, in Bible schooltextbooks and doctrinal statements. It provides a comfortablerespite fbr those who, as Jesus said, aie..ashamed of me andmy words," when questions arise (Mark g:3g).It is frightening to think that a non_soul_winning German_trained Calvinist is dictating from the grave his originals-onlytheory of inspiration to those who disavow many of his otherbelief's and practices. Warfield's inspired .originals only,heresystill stains many churches' 'statement of Fa]th.'The churcheswho have such statements think that their creed is orthodoxand have no knowledge of its heterodox origin. They do notrealize that it was merely an accommodation to the infidels inGermany who found imaginary mistakes in the Bible.

Benjamin Breckinridge warfield should have foilowed in hismaternal grandfather and namesake's footsteps. RobertBreckinridge was a lawyer and minister who single_handedlystopped the wavering American Bible Society fiom printiniits own revised version of the KJB thirty years before theRevised Version. Each generation must remember that, ..Withthe ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding,,(Job l2: l2).Warfield's disjunction of inspiration and preservation is nowhere given in the scriptures, as it is delineated in textbooks,which further muddy the waters, giving non_scripturaldefinitions and terms. The problem lies in the fact that Godhas not revealed exactly HOW scripture .,is given,, (2 Tim.3: l6) and "purified" (ps. r 2:6, 7) andthjs bothersthe liberar.Like doubting Thomas, he did not see it and therefore wilrnotbelieve it. The naturaristic empiricism adopted by higher criticsand the neo-Orthodox demanded, as did ih.i. "ounl"rparts inthe natural sciences (e.g. evolution), evidence of linearcausation. God left no such signs of how and where he did hiswork. He merely said he would,,do wonders,,to preserve hisword (Josh. 3:5-4:7). Today there is no physical proof thatthe waters of the Jordan opened to allow the passage of theark containing the word of God, yet we have those wordstoday. Likewise God has not marked the mileposts along thepath of his intervention, yet we have the word of God to-clay.

Some doubt the resurrection of the written word. To them itdied to be entombed on the material on which it was originallywritten, to rise no more. If the ,.Word" died and was burieiand rose again, wourd not the "word" also be buried and riseagain by "the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead,,(Rom. 8:11)? "After that he appeared in another form,,(Mark16:12).If the living Word could appear in another form, couldnot his written word do likewise _ in Chinese characters,Roman fonts, or Arabic script? ,.The Word was made flesh,,

for maly languishing; could not the 'word' be made fruenmany languages?The Holy Bible has always been r,:cognized as the locuinspiration, that is, until the egyptianlocusr saw irs I.ruboughs and swarmed to consume it.(64ll scripture", "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,,(2 T3:16). Just what does the phrase ..is given by rnspiratiinclude? Whar is ..All scripture"? Why does God beginsentence with the word ..All"? Linguisrs call this .fioitinwhereby the author places the most inportant point infront of the sentence. .,All,'modif res and clescribes .,scnpturThe definition of 'Ail'wiil be incruded in the Bibre's definitof 'scripture.'Does 'All'mean .the originals fiom GenesisRevelation'? Or does .all' include copies and vernacueditions also? The Bible's usage of the word ..scripture,. uanswer that question.

God pulposely placed the sore verse on the inspirationscripture in a context identifying the inspired ,.r"iiptur...what a grandmother and a mother (2 Tim. l:5) hacl taushra child. God placed inspired scriptures within the easy leraof a child. Why'/ Jesus said, ,....thou hast hid these thin_from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babe(Matt. l1:25). In the context and verse immediately precedi2Tim.3:16 Paul said to Timothy, ,.and that fiom a child thhast known the holy scriptures...All scripture is gir.eninspiration of God..." In this intmediate conrcxt th.. ,'.:npru..is something that Timothy knew as a child. Tinrothy alO nknow what the originals said; he had only heard whar the copisaid- Therefore copies, even thousanAs of years after thoriginals, are a part of ,.All scripture" and are therefore .,giveby inspiration of God." We read about the copies in Deu17:18 which states, ,,he shall write him a copy of this law inbook out of that which is before the priesrs the Levites,, (alssee Josh. 8:32). Its "life" "is given" as it is transferred onother media. Its life ..is given" over and over again, andnever diminishes. It is ..the voice of rhe living God speaking. .(Deut. 5:26).

Notjust the immediate context of 2 Tim. 3:16, but every usagrof the word "scripture[s]" in the New Testament refers to copieor translations, not the originals. Therefore the word"scripture" cannot ref-er to the originals alone. The eunuchread "scriptures"; the Bereans searched ..scriptures,,; Apolloswas "mighty in the scriptures.,,None of these people had anv'originals.'What is included in ,.All scriprure is given biinspiration of God"? Note the following:r In Acts 17:ll we read that the Bereans ..searched thescriptures daily." They did not search the onginals.9


9/22

' In Acts l8:28 Apollos was, "shewing by the scripturesthat Jesus was the Christ." He did not have originals.' In Matt. 2l:42 Jesus asked them, "Dicl ye never read inthc scriptures." Thcy did not have the originals to read.. In Matt. 22:29 Jesus told them, "Ye do err, not knowingthe scriptures." If the scriptures were only the inaccessibleonginals, why would he chide them for not knowing them?(See also Mark l2:24.)' In Luke 24:45 "opened he their understanding, that theymight understand the scriptures." What point would therebe in understanding something that neither they, nor anyoneelse had.' In John 5:39 Jesus told them to "Search the scriptures.. '"How could they, if the scriptures were only the originals?' ln Acts l7:2 "Paul...reasoned with them out of thescriptures." He did not have the Old Testament originals.. ln Mark 12:10 Jesus asked, "have ye not read thisscripture..." Why would he ask them, if only the originalswere scripture and they did not have them?r John 2:22 says that "they believed the scripture." Whowould believe something they had never seen?' Rom. l5:4 says that "we through patience and comfort ofthe scriptures might have hope." Did only those whoactually saw the originals have this promise?r 2 Peter 3:16 warns that some would "wrest, as they doalso the other scriptures." Did they break into theCorinthian church at midnight, find their original letterfiom Paul, steal it and change it? Or did they read copiesor vemacular editions and "wrest" them?

If "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," then all ofthe "scripture" noted in the aforementioned verses is "givenby inspiration of God." We must conclude that the Bible usesthe terms "scripture" and "scriptures" to describe somethingolher than just the originals. Therefore the term "All scripture"cannot refer to only the originals, 'fiom Genesis to Revelation.'It must include copies of the originals, as well as vemacularversions, as the following section will prove. Therefore theverse - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" - isstating that the originals, the copies, and the vernaculartranslations are "given by inspiration of God." When God'sHoly Bible does not match man's seminary textbook, the latteris wrong."All Scripture... to All Nations"Romans l6:26 refers to "the scriptures of theprophets...made known to all nations." One cannot knowsomething that is in another language. What they do know isrefened to as "scriptures," "All" of which are "given byinspiration of God" according to 2 Tim. 3:16. Many say thata Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was used10

by Timothy, who knew the "scriptures" and whose fatwas a Greek. "Apollos, bom at Alexandria," and "mightythe scriptures" may also have had a Greek translation ot'Old Testament (Acts l8:28). lThc'irs wus uertarnl\ rlotVaticanus sold today as the Septuagint.)Other usages of the word "scripture" might also incluvemacularcopies. Of the Ethiopian eunuch it says, "The plof the scripture which he read..." (Acts 8:32),The CatnbridHistory of the Bible speaks of the Ethiopians, who woriginally converted to Judaism after the Queen of Sheba with Solomon. To this day they still have their ancient Ethiotranslation of the Old and New Testament. The eunuch mhave been reading out of this Ethiopic translation ol ihe OTestament. Philip no doubt had the gift of tongues and "begat the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." Asays that the eunuch had "scripture" and 2 Tim. 3:16 sthat "All scripture" is "given by inspiration." Therefvernacular editions are "given by inspiration." It "is givover and over again by the Spirit of God. If man can makcomputer program that can translate a document in a ssecond, could not God's Spirit do even better'/The vemacular versions continue to be God's living scommunicating to each reader through his culture, uBiblical language. For example, in the Greek Bible in Athe heathen were described as worshipping the Gree,t godArtemis. In the English Bible, she is called 'Diana' becathat is the name by which she was known to "ali Asia andworld" (Acts l9:27). All witches today in America, FranceGermany identify their goddess as Diana, not as Artemis.strictly Greek national goddess.What is Biblical language? Edinburgh University's reseademonstrates why the Holy Bible's words must be "hharmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made hig(Heb.7:26). New versions which replace Bible rvords suc'fomication' with 'sexual' immorality or change the 'gospto good 'news' dredge up the world's sordid associations wthose words. The word 'holpen,' for example, is God's BibEnglish word for 'helped.'The word was historically uonly in the Bible. The word 'help'is much more archaic (A.D.) than'holpen.' (See ln Awe olThv Word lormany more examplesthe unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, s.v holpen, s.v. help).The Holy Ghost himself could have given any gifi at PentecThe gift of being able to fly would have greatly benetPaul and the disciples, allowing for quick and safe joumeYet he gave the gift of the word of God in the vemacula"every nation under heaven." The vernacular word ofwould be the vehicle by which they would "go into alworld and preach the gospel." Holy Ghost-given langua


10/22

r:I3

other than Greek, were the power that the disciples neededand for which they had to wait (Acts 1:8, Heb. 4:I2). Theywere not learned languages and dictionary equivalencies, butwords given by the Spirit (inspirarion) of God. My book, 1nAwe of Thy Word,traces the words from the Gothic language(extant at Pentecost) which are still readable and are now foundin the King James Bible. The English Bible is also derivedtiom otherActs 2languages, such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew,as are the Bibles in other Germanic tongues. Spanish, French,Italian, and Romanian Bibles came from the Latin "scripturesin tongues" enabled by the Holy Ghost in Acts 2.Word of God = ScripturesThe scriptures are the written words of God. The Bibleequates "scriptures" with the word of God."the word of God came, and the scripturecannot be broken..." (John l0:35)."And ye have not his word abiding in

you . . . search the scriptures" (John 5:38, 39)." , . . they received the word with all readinessof mind, and searched the scriptures..."(Acts l7:ll).The phrase "the word of God" summarizes and re-iteratesthat the Holy Bible is still God's words, nof man's words (i.e.not the words of the KJB translators, etc.). Some have tried tore-define the few simple words - "the word of God." In anyother usage the phrase ' the word of John' means that theyare John's words, not someone else's. The Bible reiterates:"when ye received the word of God which ye

heard of us, ye received it not as the word ofmen, but as it is in truth, the word of God..."(1 Thes.2:13).The phrase "the word of God" says it all, if some will onlycease re-defining it as the meaningless expression,'wordofiod.'"Samaria had received the word of God" (Acts 8:14). TheSamarian villagers spoke Samaritan; only a moderate numberof those who lived in the cities spoke Greek. Therefore theword of God was given in their vemacular language. (Fordetails,see chapters "The Wobbly Greek" and "The Scriptures to All Nations").Wycliffe & Coverdale Say God, Not Them, Was the AuthorMiles Coverdale was the editor of one of the early EnglishBibles; its words are still seen in today's KJB, particularly inthe Old Testament. He was intimately involved in the processof the Bible being "given" (2 Tim. 3: 1 6) and "purified" (psa.12:6,7) in English. He said the English Bible was authoreddirectly by the Holy Ghost. To those who say God did notdirectly author the English Bible, he said,

"No, the Holy Ghost is as much the authorof it in Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, andEnglish, as in Latin" (/n:ln,e, p, 846).Coverdale was echoing the beliefs of his predecessor,Wycliffe, who had penned one of the early English Biblewho believed that the word "scripture" referred to the Enas well as other vemacular Bibles. Wycliffe was accusheresy fbr believing the English Bible was Holy Ghost-scriptures. He said,"The clergy cry aloud that it is heresy to

speak of the Holy Scriptures in English, andso they would condemn the Holy Ghost, whogave tongues to the Apostles of Christ tospeak the word of God in all languagesunder heavgl. (Forthese and morc such quotes see C.A.Riplinger, In Awc ofThv Word. e.g.pp, ti.16. 847. 7-57. 7-58)."You say it is heresy to speak of the HolyScriptures in English. You call me a hereticbecause I have translated the Bible into thecommon tongue of the people. Do you knowwhom you blaspheme? Did not the HolyGhost give the word of God at first in themother-tongue of the nations to whom it wasaddressed? Why do you speak against theHoly Ghost? Qn Awe,p. 758 et al).Wycliffe continued his theme of "scriptures in tonguehis book Wycket, saying,"...such a charge is condemnation of the HolyGhost, who first gave the Scriptures intongues to the Apostles of Christ, to speakthat word in all languages that were underheaven" enAwe,p.758).

Wycliffe would be bumed at the stake today for believinthe Dictation Theory (even in a Bible college in goodNorth Carolina where a student just told me his profethinks 'dictation' is a heresy and the Bible is nol "perfeinerrant. ") Wycli ffe disagrees saying,"Holy Scripture is the unique word of Godand our authors are only God's scribes orheralds charged with the duty of inscribingthe law he has dictated to them...[H]ehimself had dictated it within the hearrs ofthe humble scribes, stining them to followthat form of writing and description whichhe had chosen...and not because it was theirown word, .,( In Awe, p. 7591.

When God said he would "preserve" his words "for ewhat was he preserving (Ps. 12:6, 7)? The inspired word w


11/22

is "forever settled in heaven" includes' by his will andforeknowledge, the vernacular Holy Bibles' by which eachman will be judged on the last daY'Word of God Glorified & the Disciples Multiplied

What does the Bible teach will be the result of an increasedfocus on the word of God? It gives a very simple formula:Acts 6:7 saYs, "And the word of Godincreased; and the number of the disciplesmultiPlied in Jerusalem'"Notice that the increased use of the true word of God resultedin an increased number of converts. The seed planted resultedin truit (Luke 8:11). Souls were bom again' "not of comlptibleseed. but of incomiptible, by the word of God"'" Even corruptnew versions mix their leaven with the real scriptures' Newversions always plagiarize the living words of the KJB' Icollated the original NASB and found that most of thesentences in much of their book of Romans

were taken directlyfrorn the KJB. Even the word "Jesus" is a KJB word'Though some will be saved by using the living KJB wordsundeinew version covers, Paul thought it was important towam people about "many which corrupt the word of God" (2Cor.2'.17). Warning soldiers of the location of land mines isnot a diversionary tactic' Tearfully Paul warned night andday of those who spoke "perverse things" or "comrpt the wordof God" (Acts 20:29 -3i, Z Cor' 2:17)' What was the finalbottom line for Paul?2 Thes. 3:1, 2 "Finally, brethren' pray for

us, that the word of the Lord may have freecourse, and be glorified"'for all men havenot faith..."

Unbelievers and new converts must hear the word "glorified"(2 Thes. 3:1). Certainly God's living and life-giving wordsmust be free from OeaOty doubting comments' This is notaccomplished when someone says' "That word in Greekactualiymeans..." The listener will naturally conclude' 'I donot have what God actually said"" When the word is not"gloritied" it is difllcult for unbelievers and new Christians tohlve

..faith"in it. The Bible itself gives the

impression thatreaders actually have the very words of God' Verses such asI Peter l:25 arecharacteristic in their personal address:"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever'

And this is the word which by the gospel isPreached unto You.''

Christians Must Have Inspired Scriptures1.) The new birth is given by the incorruptible seed of theword of God. The "scripture" which "is given byinspiration" is described asl'protitable" and that which is

"able to make thee wise unto salvation'" If only thwho had the originals or could read Greek could be mwise unto salvation' few could ever be saved'2.) This "scripture" "given by inspiration of God"profitable for doctrine, for reproof' for correctioninstruction in righteousness: that the man of God maperfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2i:16, 17). It must be somethingthat allmen must hnot just those who had the originals or can read GreeHebrew.3.) The pastoral epistles and the book of Acts do not inca charge that men become linguists to be qualifiepastors. There is no mention of being conversant inlunguug.r, (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic' and one's n,on!u.l.lf only Greek and Hebrew communicated Gtrue intended meaning,linguistics would be givenBible as a qualification for ministry'4.) The Bible says that our battle requires the "sword oSpirit, which is the word of God" (Eph' 6:17)inspiration). "For though we walk in the flesh' we d*ai after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfanot carnal, but mighty through God" '" (2 Cor' 10Our B ible cannot be a product of translators ' fleshly mWe are told that "we have the mind of Christ" (12:16). Today's believers certainly need a God-wrweapon, just as much as those who received the orior who understood Koine Greek' God is no respepersons.

SummarY & More HelPIn the King James Bible we hold in our hands th"word of God, which tiveth and abideth for ever"/tiZl -1qiu"tr"r" and "abideth" define inspiratiofr"r"*u,ion. Inspiration abides and its life is preserved'written a 1,200 page book, In Awe of Th"t

Understancling the King James Bible ' lts History and MLetter By Letter'That which is merely touched uponchapter is e*pounded thoroughly t'11book' InsPirdiscussed particularly in Chapters g'22'24 and on p563, 7 51-771, 843-85 1, and 865-870'The King James Bible must be the English words of God"liveth and abideth fbrever," because the English wthe liberal men who authored Greek and Hebrew studare certainly nol inspired and hardly convey God's inmeaning. Ripley's Believe'lt-Or-Nol has nothing oshockirlg discoveries unearthed in Greek and HebreDangeri1ow available in a preview e-book (CD-ROMA.VlpuUtications, P.O. Box 280, Ararat' VA 24053435-4535) and expected from the printers in the sum2009.


12/22

THE INSPIRED,PHESE-RVHD-WoRDWhcn yeu prescrve

sonnethnng y@u keep nt nn ntsGufficnt fornn, and what Gedgnves nn nmspnratnem floscsnothnng by preservatfl@n.

Bible Text:lohn l:l-lI ln the beginning was the Word, ctnd lhe Worcl wns v:i/lrGorl. ancl the Word was Gr,tcl.2 The same was in the beginning with God.3 All things were made by him: and willtout him was nol anvthing rnade that was made.Il Tirnot ht, 3 : l6All scripture is given by inspirution oJ'God, and is proJitablefor doctrine, Jor reproof , Jbr correction, Jor instruction inrighteousness:I believe that I have a copy of the inspired, preservedI Word of God in my hand. I want you to know why It believe that. I want you to know why you believe that.I don't want you to believe it because ldo. lwant yolt tobelieve it because the facts, truths, and proofs are available. Iwant you to be able to give an answer. It's not good enough tosay. "Well. I believe it because the old-timers believed it."That's a good reason to study it and know it, but you don'thave to worry about proving God, His Spirit, or His Word.The more you study it, the more proof you know that He isGod and this is His Word.John l:l says, "ln the beginning was the Word, and the Wordtt'cts with God, and the Word was God." John l:14 says,"And the Word was made J'lesh, and dwelt omong as.. ." Thisis the Lord Jesus Christ here, "...(andwe beheld his |lorv,the glorl as oJ'the only begotten ofthe Futher,) J'ull o.f' graceancl lruth." II Timothy 3:14-15 says, "Bttl continue thou in

the things which lhou hast learned ancl hast been ussurknowing of whom lhou hast leornecl them: And tltut Jtr:hilrl thou hast knovvn the hoh, scriptures." I want ynotice that he didn't say, "Now that you are a Bible scyou know the Bible is the Word of God." He said, "Youthe Bible was the Word of God when you were a child.tired of folks saying, "Well, if you don't know the Heand the Greek, you can't know the Bible." Don't believeDon't believe that at all. Paul said, "Arrri tltut Jront athou hasl know,n the holy scriptures,whiclt ere able Iothee vvise unlc,t salvalion through Jaith x,hic'h is in CJesus." II Timothy 3:16 says, "All sc'ripture is gileinspiration oJ'God..." That is a very powerfll statelnent the Bible riglrt there. "...urtcl i.s prolituble Ior cloctrittre p ro oJ', Jb r c' o r re c' t i o n, J or i n.s t ntc t i o rt i n r i g h t e o u s ne s sthe man oJ' God may be perJ'ect...." l'hat word "pethere means "complete". When a little baby is bom ansay the body was perf'ect, what does that nean? That nall of its fingers, toes, and every part of the body was thewas perfect, or it was complete. "That the nrun oJ'Gocbe perfect, throughly J'urnished unto all good works."Every institution of life has a foundation or has aauthority. Actually, every activity that we do in life ison something that we believe in our hearts and in our mFor example, when I say that America was foundedChristian nation on the principles of the Word of God Ithat our founding fathers took the Word of God as theirauthority fbr their decisions and directions ot'lite. Letturther than that. There have been several cases wheUnited States Srlpreme Court has said and concluded inwritings thatAmerica is a Christian nation. Those concluwere based on the fact that America was fbunded oScriptures, the Word of God. After doing a study ofounding documents beginning with the Mayflower Comthe Declaration of lndependence, the Constitution of the UStates and the influence of the Ten CommandmenAmerica, the United States Supreme Court declared in uthat the United States was in fact a Christian nationvery Ten Commandments are engraved on the wallsSupreme Court building.I began by saying that every instrtution of life has a tbund


13/22

or has a flnal authority. One of the ways America is beinghr,rrt today is by the chipping away or the redel.ining of theC'onstitutiorr ol'the United States. There are those tt,ut ,oyrhat the constitutio' is a document that evolves and so thereare ludges that say they determine what the constitution saysrather rhan upholding the constitution. I don't believe thatth.e work of the judge is to interpret the Constitution. I believeit's tlieir responsibility to uphold the Constitution. By theri'a1,, the Constitution of the United States never gives a rightthat supersedes thc Word of God. If you believe that it do;s,then you know nothing of American history prior to that of1890 or 1900. lf you knew American history before that, youwould understand that the Constitution never gives u ,igt,ttliat supersecles the Word of God. The liberty that it speaks ol-is Iiberty rhat is within the bounds of thc Word of God. Forexample, thc- Constitution gives no right to abortion. That isoutside the limits and the laws. .fhe Constitution gives nospecial rights to soclonry. Why? It doesn't because sodontv isoutside the bounds of the Word of God. .l,he Constitution washighly and mosr influenced by the Wor


14/22

oracles to give Ltnto Lts." The Bible is not only eternal but itis also etemally alive.It is important to recognize the promise of I Peter I :23 wherethe Bible says the word"liveth and abidethfor ever." It wasnot given in life and then got old and died. Some like to say,"Well, it was given in inspiration."The Bible doesn't say "was"given. It says it "is" given. Not "was" alive, but "is" alive.Not "was" inspired but "is" inspired. Not "was" filled withthe Spirit, but "is" filted with the Spirir. Ir was nor given inlif'e and then got old and died. It is alive and will stay aliveand will abide forever. The spirit and life of Scriprure arewhat enables us to bring fbrth the spiritual new birth. I amalive in Christ because of the living Word of God.Only living things can reproduce themselves. That's a miracleof God. Only living things reproduce themselves. Things thatGod put breath and life in and that He gave the miracle toreproduce. I Peter l:23,"Being born again, not of corruptibleseed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which livethand abideth lbr ever." Jesus said His Words are life. I'mglad according to this Bible that I can hide that Word in myheart. I'm glad it's nigh unto us even in our mouth. One daywe will be judged by it. Thank God I don't have to worryabout my salvation because I already read what it takes to beborn again. I've already been judged at Calvary when I putmy faith in Christ and He put my sins under the blood. Heavenis rny home. I'm secure in my salvation because of the Word'sof Lif-e. If the Bible is dead, we can'r get life fiom it. Wemust have the living Word of God.A fiog or a toad's lungs are living, breathing things that Godcreated. Why would God continue to make a toad's lungsperf'ect to breathe out only a croak of a toad's breath but notbe able to keep His Bible alive? Did the Bible croak? I declarethat it did not. I declare that the Bible is the living Word ofGod. Let me go further. I believe that I hold in my hand andI have the King James 161 1 . I believe this book that I hold inrny hand is the living Word of God. I like what Wyclifl'e saidwhen he said that the English words were drawn from theinspired Scriptures in tongues. That is why I declare, and Iwill go further, I believe that this book, the King James Versionis the living, preserved, inspired Word of God.2. The Bible is inspired.The Bible says in II Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is givenby inspiration. What an important passage of Scripture here.Young people, get this settled in your heart right now. I promiseyou that there will come a day when someone will try to getyou to doubt the Word of God. If we begin to doubt the Wordof God, then we begin to doubt which miracles are true andwhich are not true. Then we begin to doubt the virgin birth.

Then we begin doubt the coming and second coming ofLord Jesus Christ. Before long we are atheists in our heand lives. We must believe and undersrand b1, taith thatBible continues to be the inspired, preserved Word of GodTimothy 3'.l4, "But continue thou in the things v,hichhasl learned and hast been assured o1..." Did you noticehis grandmother didn't give hirn doubt by saying, "Well. rnof this book is the Word of God."? She assured hinr rharIlible is the \lbrd ol'God. She assured liint. "...tuttlJi'om a child thou hust knr.H,tr tha holy sLripturt's. v'hichable to make thee yvise untct salvation through Juith v,hic.in Christ Jesus." Notice the phrase and underline it in vBible. "A// scripture is given by inspiration ofGod.,." Tis one of the most important verses in the Bible concernour understanding of the subject at hand - the Bible beinginspired, preserved Word of God.Let me pause right here and point out some of the arraSatan is using to bring doubts to the fact that God did ininspire and preserve His etemal and living Word. Someonly the originals are inspired. Some say only the HebrAramaic, and Greek are inspired. Some say that we canhave an inspired, preserved Word of God. Please recognthat Satan has been attacking the words of God sinceGarden of Eden. Satan did not deny that God's words existI{e simply worked to bring doubt to them in Eve's mind. "HGod surely saidl" "Did He really mean..'/"The word inspired means to be filled with the spirit or roalive. "...the words that I speak unto lolt, thet,ttre spand they are liJe." If only the originals are inspired, rhen tmeans what I have is dead. Nobody has originals. WhereGod originally give the Ten Commandments? What did Modo with them? He broke them. Are they talking abouroriginals in Heaven or on Earth? How far do you want toback with "originals"? I believe and I will show you lrthis passage of Scripture that it is nor.iusr the originals tare inspired and preserved. I believe it is THIS Book thainspired and preserved. Notice in II Timothy 3:16. Firstsays, "A// Scripture.." That modifies or defines the wo"scripture". He doesn't say that most of the scripturernspired. He said, "All scriptrtre is given ltv in.spircttionGod." In a moment we are going to see how that wo"scripture" is used. I believe that I have an every word BibAnd if I don't, show me afier church which words are norBy the way, you be careful about new age versions that arethe market today. The New IntemationalVersion, alone.2,000 changes and omissions. If I bought a new car that h2,000 parts missing or wrong then I wouldn't take it. Ycouldn't give it to me. I'd take your version back and saypaid full price. I want a full Bible." I want you to notice t


15/22

in the context of this verse.that paul was speaking to Timothyand telling him that he had been assure


16/22

thent fbr not know something that wasn't available. Do astudy of the word "scripture,' in the New Testament and seehow many times it appears.God promised to preserve His Word. When God makes apromise, I have no reason to doubt it. you can give me astack of evidence against His promise, but I won't agree withit. I'm always going to believe in God's promise. you maysay, "That's fbolish faith." cail it whatever you want to cailit. but I believe in the promises of God. The Bible says inMatthew 24:35."Heaven and earth shallpass away, but mytyorcls' shall not pass away.', psalm 12:6_7 says,',.\-he worclsof the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in afurnace ofeurth, puriJied seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,thou shalt preserve them from this generation J'or ever.,,Notise that He doesn't say .,thoughts," but He says ..words.,,Proverbs 30;5-6 says, "Every word of God is pure; he is ashield unto them that put their trust in him. Adcl thou nor

unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found aliur."I believe the King James Bible that I hord in my hand is theinspired, preserved Word of God. This book comes from whatis called the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text. Out of allthe copies of the Bible that were collected 95To were identicaland referred to as the Textus Receptus. When you study thehistory of the Scriptures you will find that the Jews were verycareful and meticulous in copying the Word of God. All ofthe new versions are supported by or come from the 5To of thecopies that did not agree, or the Corrupted Text. These arecorrupt 4'h Century manuscripts known as Vaticanus orSinaiticus. These manuscripts are filled with text alterationsto meet the demands of the Roman Catholic tradition. TheReceived Text, from the King James Bible came, can be tracedto Antioch, Syria where the disciples were first calledChristians and where paul and Barnabas taught the Word ofGod for a whole year according to Acts chapter eleven. Theother Bibles do not come from there. They come fromAlexandria or Rome.

God is not the author of confusion. It is men that causeconfusion. We shouldn't be a part of the doubt and confusion.We ought to approach the Word of God by faith and study theScriptures and search the Scriptures. I promise you thai youwill conclude rhar rhis Book is the Word of God. I had theprivilege to sit under some great preachers. I had the privilegeto hear Lester Roloff preach on the Bibre. He cailed the Bibrehis mother. He said,',I was begat by the living Word of God.Don't mess with my mother. Don't go cutting up and takingout parts of my mother. I love the Word of God!,' I had theprivilege of sitting under Jack Hyles and hearing him preach

a serrnon called "Keep your Stinkin'Feet Out of My DrinWaterl"A couple of years before he passed away he said, ..The bigsplit that has ever come will come in tlre next ten years. ifsooner, over the King James Bible." He added, ,,lt coulcome soon enough fbr me. I'm tired of colleges and universadvertising that they use the King James glLte. tett rhe whstory! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspword for word!" He also saicl, ,,I'll not give my lot,altinstitutions. I'llgive nry loyalty ro principles anclsupportinstitutions that embrace those principles. Don't be surprbecause I've dropped my loyalty to some institutions. A ngeneration of whipper-snappers who didn't fight the war hcome on the scene. To me, it is like teenagers rebelling agatheir parents to have their own thinking and not emU.a.what is handed down to them by somebody else. Thermore to the King James Bible issue than a bunch of independBaptist, Fundamentalists, trying to cause a raucous.',

We must believe and understand that the Bible is the inspirpreserved Word of God. Let's not just believe it, but let js lit, teach it, preach it, and practice it.

EDITOR'S NOTE:,.DOUBLE TALK"Do not be fooled by ',Double

Talk." YOu cannot support thKing James Bible for 20minutes and then say someoneis "ignorant" if they use theword "inspired" with the KingJam'es Bible. You eithebelieve' the book is alive andinspirdd;: or you don'tt


17/22

OPTO

ENDR

LETTERI SGHAAP

*All page numbers listed are reJerring to lhe book by Dr.Schaap entitled, Where Are We Going?.Dr. Schaap,I have written this letter in response to five events that havetaken place:l. Your book,Where are we going?, was distributed to all o1'the delegates at the Pastor's School of 2008. On Tuesclal'nroming you taught fiom the pofiion of the book in which yoLrdiscuss the "distractions" to church growth. Your teaching olthe book, and the book itself, brought some serious questi()nsto my mind as to where you stood on the King James Bible. Atthat time, I dismissed my concems by assuming your teachingwas a very mis-worded attempt to get men back to the workof soul winning.2. In November of this year (2008), a professor from Hyles-Anderson College was teaching at ourcollege (CommonwealthBaptist College) here in Lexington. His subject had nothingto do with theology, but in the middle of that lecture he beganto give quotes and phrases from your book, Where are wegoing?. He said, "Don't be foolish enough to let someone tellyou that this King James Bible is the Inspired Word of God".3. On Saturday, November22,we spoke twice on the telephortcin regards to the above situation and the King James Bibleissue. In talking to you I had hoped that there was, onceagain, a misunderstanding of words and that we believed alike.4. In light of these events, I then re-read your book, Whereare we going?.5. I listened to your sermon, "Inspiration and Preservation",which was preached on Sunday evening, November 23,2008.In the sermon, you stated that anyone who uses the wordinspired with the King James Bible was ignorant and deceptive.This is more than semantics. I should not have to work tobelieve a Baptist preacher of your stature believes that theKing James Bible is the inspired, preserved Word of Godl18

Let me deal with several issues in more detail:l. In your book,Where Are We Going?, you say thafighting fbr the KJB was and is a distraction fromchurch growth. (p.84)

" Allow me to wade into a treacherous streatn v,itstrong currents and multiple hidden dangershowever. it is one thal illuslrates well thdislractions that hat,e hurt lhe lndependent Baptischurch-growth movement. The King James Bibli.rsae i.s a good example oJ'what sidetruc'ked rnanF trnclame ntal I nde pe ndent B apt i st s."(Quoted fiom p. 84 ot Where Are We Going?)

When you think of what happened through the 70's90's and up to now we have had an onslaught of newversions thrown at us. Often we have made the statemeyou could belong to a "Bible of the Month Club" bethere were so many new Bible versions. These new vecoming into the church were all so very comrptl Theylike the damnable heresy of Legalism that came into the cat Galatia against which Paul had to take a stand!Our preaching about the King James Bible was a warnpeople about these new Bible versions. It also wamednot to use one of these corrupt Bibles and to stay withpreserued Word. Had we not fought ibr the King Jamesstudied. and worked. where would we be today'JDr. Hyles made it a great issue at Pastors'School onand had a preacher named Al Lacey teach and preachthis! He also honored Dr. Gail Riplinger and promotbooks on the subject of the King James Bible. Thesecontinue to be a great source of information and instrucbelieve that taking a stand for the King James Bible mabeen what has preserved our nation for these years!2. While re-reading your book, Where are we goingwhole idea, philosophy, and motives of "mega-churreally concerned me.I am not against a church growing to be a large size, bu


18/22

are not careful we will let our goal become the building of amega-church at any costs (I think this has happened all acrossAmerica.). If I have to choose between being a mega-churchor holding to the truth of the KJB and dress standards andother stands, then I will choose to stand for the truthlMany men pastor in rural and small towns that cannot build achurch of 500, let alone a church of thousands. I do not seeone good thing in America that has resulted from the mega-church mentality or movement. We have seen a continual movetoward liberalism in every area of the church (no matter whatits size may be) which has been led by the mega-churchmovement.The mega-church has not affected our culture in a spiritual orpositive way at all. In my opinion, it has aided to the fall ofour American culture by accepting worldliness and bringingit into the church. They have legitimized rock music andworldly dress. Very few of the mega-churches will preach theGospel since most of them do not get involved with anythingcontroversial. Their goal is not to be salt and light to the worldbut to build a mega-church!We do have some large churches that are fundamental andstrong, but in these cases it was not the pastor's motive tobuild a mega-church. Their motive was simply to labor hardin the work and will of Cod. In my experience, travel, and,observation, it is the church from size 100 to 600 that affectsits community the most. They have not lost their zeal. Theyare not afraid to take a stand for fear of losing members ormoney. I am not promoting that churches work to be this size,but I am promoting that churches do not lose their "first love"or lose their zeal to stand for truth and right and win souls toChrist. It is obvious from history that God has used, and isusing, churches of all sizes whether they are small or large.3. If fighting for the King James Bible was a distraction,then I wonder about dress standards?If the King James Bible was such a distraction from growth,will dress standards be the next thing about which you willchide and fuss at pastors? Will you tell them that womenwearing pants is not such a big issue? Will you tell them thatdress standards in general are not important? You know thatFundamental Baptist Churches have had more people to leaveover dress standards than the King James Bible by far!The church is not to work to make "followers" but to make"disciples" (Luke l4:25-33). The Lord Jesus was not satisfiedwith a multitude of followers. He desired that these followerswould become disciples, servants, and workers for Him.

Bill Hybels himself said this year that they have failed imodel of church. He said that they have produced follbut have not produced disciples.r Our goal in church wnot simply to gather the biggest crowd for sake of numbut it is to gather the biggest crowd so we can preach tothe Word of God in order that they may be saved, baand become disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.4. I am amazed that you would, in any wa.v, commchurch like the Saddleback Church and Rick W(p.se)

"Pastor Rick Warren of megachurch famproclaims, 'lt's all about Jesus Christ.' PasroWarren built his church in contrast to the fact tha7,000 churches in his own denomination (SBC) dinot have one convert walk the aisle. The fact thahe or others choose to use rock'n'roll rnusic oanother version of the Bible is certainly a valipoint of contention, and one which manF undamental Baptists, including me, would cautioas problematic for a man who claims he wants tbe both Biblical and relevant; however, a Baptischurch isn't blessed simply because Fundamentamusic or the King James Bible is used. A church iblessed when it promotes Jesus Christ!"(Quoted from p. 59 of Where Are We Going?)

It just amazed me that you would, in any way, commchurch like the Saddleback Community Church as afor church growth. Saddleback is a church that desiresall churches come together in Ecuminicism - including aaccording to Rick Warren's words.2 It is a church thatBaptist. Saddleback Church may say that they lift up Cbut their definition of this does not match the Word ofYou say that the Lord commended the church of Ththough they had many faults and a woman preacher, wthink is a stretch here. (p. 58)

"Yes, there are churches that are large and growingand preach a false gospel, but also believe thereare churches which follow contemporary modelthat have the blessings of God as well.Allow me to explain. In Revelation2:]8-29,Jesuspersonally addresses a very hard-working churchthal is growing and has numerous faults. It is thechurch ofThyatira. I believe this passage describesmany of loday's large, contemporary churchmodels.


19/22

The church in Thyatira was commended by Jesusfor its works, but it was warned lo change severalsignificant matters,lest the church see its'children'die. The implication is profound. This growingchurch did not have a Biblical model that allowedthe next generation to sustain its growth. Growthat lhe expense of the next generation - my, howthat describes what is happening today in manylarge churches. The contemporory tools thalbrought the crowds into the auditorium allowed theteaching pastor to present the Gospel, but beyondlhe hearers getting saved, they have receivedrelatively little sound Biblical indoctrination. Andthe result is thal many of that younger generalionare leaving those churches, looking for somelhingelse.One can argue that if a church uses the 'wron7'Bible, people connot truly be saved. Practically,that is just plain bogus. Multitudes of us KingJames believers have used a variety of translationswhile out soul winning to bring people to Jesus. Ihave won many Catholics using their own DouayVersion. And so have many of you reading thisbook. I have done the same for Jehovah's Witnessesusing their own New World Translation. I am astrong believer in the incorruptible seed (pleasesee my booklet,Why Stand Against the King JamesBible?), but practically I believe that I can win asoul Io Christ without his seeing a Bible. It is thetruth, not a version, that makes themfree.Again, one can argue thal many of these churchestoday are corrupting the Gospel. Well, the Gospelis clearly defined in I Corinthians 15 :1-4,'Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospelw,hich I preached unto you, which also ye havereceived, and wherein ye stand; By which also yeare saved, if ye keep in memory what I preachedunto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For Idelivered unto you first of all that which I alsoreceived, how that Christ died for our sinsaccording to lhe scriptures ; And that he was buried,and that he rose again the third day according tothe scriptures.'The Gospel is the death, burial, andresurrection of Jesus Christ.I believe that when a church exalts Jesus Christ asthe Son of the Living God and explains the Gospeland makes much of Jesus,Godwill 'draw all men'unto Him. Those who magnify Jesus find favorwith God in spite of the issues that may prevent

20

them from having sustained growth after ageneration. Thyatira had many faults, includingimmorality, a female minister, and lhe 'depths ofSatan,' but God still commended them J'or theirabundant works of church growth. Thyatira soundslike a culturally sensitive church model;nonetheless, God said, 'l know lhey works, andcharity, and service, and faith, and thv potience.and thy works: and the lctsl to be more thun thelirst.' ( Revelation 2 : I 9 )I believe it would be wise for critical IndependentBaptist to cast the beam out of their own e1,es andset lheir churches in order according to the Biblicalmodel rather than to scorn those who are exaltingJesus but do not follow completely the correctmodel. Worse still, some are abandoning theBiblical model and following these 'Thyatiran'church models."(Quoted from p. 58-59 of Where Are We Going?)

Why would you stop at this point and be positive in any waWhy did you not say what God told them in the followiverses of that passage in Revelation?

Revelation 221-25And I gave her space Io repenl oJ'her J'ornication:and she repented not. Behold,l will cast her into abed, and them that commit adultery with her intogreat tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.And I will kill her children with death; and all thechurches shall know that I am he which searcheththe reins and hearts: and I will give unto every oneof you according to your works. But unlo you I say-,and unto the rest inThyatira, as many as have nolthis doctrine, and which have not known the depthsof Satan, as they speak; I wilL put upon you noneother burden. But that which ve have alreadv holdfast till I come.

From reading the next paragraph,.where you commendSaddleback Church, it seems that we are to think thatchurch of Thyatira was okay but just a little "off model". Gwas in a killing mood over this church's behavior! You thproceed to chide pastors for taking a stand and preachagainst these kinds of things by saying that they should " . ..the beam out of their own eyes and sel their chttrchesorder!" (p. 59). You chide good pastors rather than scomthose pastors and churches that are "exalting Jesus" as tuse versions other than the King James Bible and play rmusic in their churches! You have got to be kidding! The Biteaches us to not only win people to Christ and disciple thebut it also teaches us to preach against those people that wo


20/22

bring these things into the church! God had just warned theThyatira church that he was going to kill them, and you donot want us to preach against that same behavior in ourchurches today?lWhen I read this I think of my father who was a wonderfulcountry preacher! I think of the many, many preachers that Ipreach for across the country today that firmly take a standnot only fbr truth and right but also against modernism,liberalism, and worldlinessl We learned this from preacherslike John the Baptist, Peter, James, Paul, the Old TestamentProphets, and modern day preachers of this generation andpasl generations - men like Frank Norris, Jack Hyles, LeeRoberson, Tom Malone, and many others. This is the kind ofpreacher I am!NIay I add that my taking a stand against "worship leaders"who look like country music stars, church buildings that looklike theatres instead of churches, and music that makes happyrather than holy has not hurt our church! Grant it, we mayhave more people in church if I did not take these stands, butI would also have trouble and fear that God would removeHis hand of blessings and power. It did not hurt Dr. Hyleseither! We have grown an average of 100 members per yearfbr 17 years by taking this kind of a stand. This past fall weaveraged over 1,800, and in the past l0 years we have helped,in some way, to start 20 churches!You are more positive and supportive about the church atThyatira and Rick Warren than you are of old-fashioned,firestorm, window-rattlin' preachers! You should not makepreachers ashamed of taking a stand. You should encouragethem to keep on preaching! Young pastors will read your bookand think, "While these modern methods may not be the bestmodel, they are alright because it brings growth, and they areexalting Christ." Nonsense! Poppycock!By the way, because a dead possum or deer beside the road inthe hot sun is bigger today than it was 3 days ago does notmean it has grown - it means it has swollen! It is dead androtting just like many of the mega-churches today! You giveme preachers who will take a stand against rock music,perverted Bibles, and liberalism any day!5. While you work to assure the reader of your book thatyou are a King James man, you say nothing positive aboutthe King James Bible!Your book is filled with negatives, ridicule, and slander aboutthe King James Bible. It seems you say so many negativethings that you even have to assure yourselfthat you still use

the King James Bible. Here are some examples of the negthings you say about the King James Bible:A. You say that the King James Bible had ',more20,000 errors of spelling...." (p. 85)"Now, for you technical worriers out there, weunderstand that there were more than 20,000 errorsof spelling and typesetting in the first edition ofthe 16ll King James Bible."(Quoted from p. 85 of Where Are We Going? )

The errors of spelling and typesetting in the firsr edof the I 6l I King James Bible only number in the hundThe number 20,000 does not apply to errors of speand typesetting in the first edition of the 161 I King JaBible. Even King James Bible critics admit this (see DNorton, A Textual History oJ' the King James BCambridge University Press, 2005, p. 161-172)scholar uses the word "errors" when referring to evolchanges in orthography and typography.B. You say that King James killed Baptists. (p.5"There are also those men we hold high withrespect, and yet they murdered and tortured ourBaptistforefathers. Four such men include MartinLuther, John Calvin, JohnWinthrop, and yes, evenKing James."(Quoted from p. 53 of Where Are We Going?)

This is not only another negative statement in an effoseemingly demean King James, but it is also just downrnot true! This is a lie that you have repeated fiom t' that hate the King James Biblel This is the languagthe enemy, not one that should be working to strengpeople's faith in God's perfect Bible!C. You mention that you have a pamphlet entitle

"Why Stand Against the King James Bible".s8)"l am a strong believer in the incorruptible seecl(please see my booklet,Why Stand Against the KingJames Bible?), but practically I believe that I canwin a soul to Christ without his seeing a Bible."(Quoted from p. 58 of Where Are We Going?)

I have never read nor seen this pamphlet, but what dothink anyone is supposed to think about you and vposition on the King Janres Bible to even ntention tDo you have such a pamphlet'? Do you teach in some


21/22

to stand against the -King James Bible? perhaps, I amotalry misundersranaingihis, "r;;;;;; tr,ut r u..D. You use the words ,,foolishness,, and,barbarism" to describ. tfro*iloiuu"defended rhe King James B;i": i;. io, ,u)"Because of the amount of ,footishness, beingbanlered about on nis suiiect ir"rl,")rirx u,u,,students, such as leversion is inspired..:,thi's that the King James(Quoted fiom p. g4 of Where Are We Going?)

"...a multitttde of vounger pastors who had beent,ooking n us 1or" a ,ole model ora troierinip butbecame confused and disenchrr:,iri ,i,ii'Jr nearbarbarism.',(Quoted from p. g6 of Where Are We Going?)Admittedly, there are some that have had a wrongdisposition in theirdefense of the Kid;;;", Bible. Thereare also those that have taken a st;d that goes to therighr - such as saving that you rnrr, i" ,u*d by the Kingj"n]:r Bible oryou are a two_fold child of Hell. However,I will guarantee you that there t, , g.#, "eed to take astand for the King James Bible belaur" ot.rt " enemiesthat are printing perverred Bibles rhu; t;;" is a need rostand againsr rhe very few that,.y g;,;;e right on rhismatter!

I would rather have someone that is too zealous for God,sWord than someone that sows seeds of doubf about God,sWord. I am not for vq_uickerto.,i,i.;,r;",l:",lsr;nil-TlH: jr:,",tlr::y".d f T for being over_zealousf f ,ititut. rnen likeiheApostle Peter, who was often over_zealous. over a RickWarren-E. You say that it is deceptive and ignorant to teachthat the King James fiint. i. inrplr"a.("Inspiration and prese.oution,ii ."..on,Sunday, November 23, Z00g)'' rr'{' l;etonu: rttnf r.y,e tl y,hcn /ltut u;t.,t.t! iuspirecli.t trsr:d lt)'lltr.tt, iknoruni isr tlt,t:r:1.tlit(, tt,.zL^k(.r., wlttttrtpttiit',1 t, t/tt: d.l L/. I helitvt: tlte K,/l,v,tr.t t:t,l gi,tn!t.t' intpit.rt/it;tr. !l w.u,t gi,r:tt l.tt, hrtrtl wttt.L ondtliligent !ttbrir, t,trtd I lrt:/it:v.t: lltut w1'ts{ y,1,6.1.pnt_t'irlr:tuiuIl,- ,tuparint,tttl.tl ht, (iorl rtnrl Iluu Ittttk'./\: i,r rln: pt t:.tr:rvedltoxJ rl.Gru.t. n,, ,trrlir;lnl)tut.(t,sl)r()tni.\(dl tfuu ()od v,otrlfi S;yr,.r,*rve 11 is it,r>t115.,

22

(euote taken from ,.Inspiration and preservatioserrnon, Sunday, November 23, 200g)I believe that my King James Bible is inspiredhink it is heretical ro-say tfrut tt"-iirg Jamesnspired then th,andtheo,"u.n".",1'n11i"Til:ffi"#;ilTl'i:you say that men like Bob Jones Sr., Jack Hylorhers were sraring heresy ,h." ;;;;id it was in

lnspiration is more than a method. Inspiration meathe Spirit of God is within ,h;;;;;:. rhe Bibl,'*':::::,'!,i:,,':f'"n tv i^pi'otioi ", ,19o". ;in th_e woodirr,:, "*:ffi,: J:;Jff iil!';,,:T;:ut I am in good company.You always use the word inspiration in the pastG.e. "was given,')..That is noi;;;;; Bible saysBible says, ,,...is given Oy inrpiloiion.'. ,,. ," sayingyou cannot deny that you believe that the Originalsinspired but not theBible we fru".1oOuy.'f"spiration mthat my Bible is alive! It for, noif,ing',1 Or.r"*utiincluding inspiration !

You try to say that people who believe the King JBible is inspired believe in r,OouUie inspiration.,,answer is, .,The Bible never cliedl It OiJ nor need tinspired again! If it .was, inspired rh;; ,is, inspirJohn 6:63 proclaims_ ,, . . .the words tio't t' ,prot untothey are spirit, and they are tife.,,-;;;;; l:23 hera" . . .the word of God, w'hich tirrtn o))-o'iiaan yo, "r..t;tl"_" cannot say thatyour Bible is inspired (not becal:":::,,11:flred again bur becaus"'i, n.u.. lostmsprratlon) then you must conclude that only the Originar1, insgrled. Inspiration withoui fr.r"r""r,"n menothing! Preservation without lnrpi.utiorl rneans nothiThis is not a marter of semantics. fi;;; ;;,rer of gerrit right!

I have never heard a Baptist preacher say they hav"word of knowledge" (p. is). N""".1e.ffis you havedo northink rhis danger exists, but perh;;" have heathis. I have heard some Charismatic, ,iy ir,ir, but wenot listen to them anyway. They are ofion every ma:ib}g:orjne. rhey woura nott..ish;;;n if they hthe Originals!F. You say,,there are nearly trvo dozen various K.Jetliliolrs in lhis countr1,, witlr nrore than l0t) r,arian


22/22

readings.t' ("Inspiration and Preservation,"sermon, Sunday, November 23r2008)"At tltts present lintc,lherc ure necrrl\ two rlozcnvariotts KIV editions in this country,with more thanI 00 t,ariant readings."(Quote taken from "Inspiration and Preservation,"serrnon, Sunday, November 23, 2008)

I am aware that there are some differences of spelling insome and that we should use the correct one, but I wouldlike to see the list of the "nearly two dozen" different KingJames Bibles. Once again, however, you cast clouds ofdoubt over the King James Bible. Why do you work sohard to do this?G. You say that God's Word does not need

defending. (p.86)" ...our near barbarism. Cursing, swearing, namecalling, and character assassination were allconsidered fair play in order to 'defend God'sWord.'But God's Word did not need defending; it neededobedience. If we had used the King James Versionto build slrong, soul-winning, lhoroughlyindoctrinated churches, our works would have beenall the answer lhat was needed."(Quoted from p. 86 of Where Are We Going?)

What were preachers supposed to do when their peoplewere going to book stores to buy Bibles and they weregetting everything from the New International Version tothe Reader's DigestVersion? If preachers had not taken afirm stand for truth then we would be in an absolute messtoday conceming the Bible!The Bible tells me to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. We areto admonish and warn! We are to cry aloud againsttransgressions and sins !I do agree that we are not just to defend and polish theweapon, but we are to use it. But make no mistake, weare also supposed to defend and contend for the faith!H. You quote Dr. John Rice as saying that we are to"...8e a Fundamentalist, But Not a Nut". (p. 44)"While Dr. Rice clearly linked the termFundamentalism to vigorously defending the failh

chapter entitled 'Be a Fundamentalist, But Not aNut' in which he commented on lhe King James-only position and describes preachingfor Dr. Harn,Ironside at thefamous Moody Churchof Chicago."(Quoted fiorn p. 44 of Where Are We Going?)

After you give this quote by Dr. Rice you give the exaof being a King James only person. Why would yousomething like that in a book if you do not want preacto think that they are a nut if they believe the King JaBible is THE Word of God? Dr. Rice was the prea' who preached the serrnon, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wand Women Preachers!" If I am a nut for taking aJames Bible only position - then call me a nut!

6. You said to me on the telephone that you would nolisten to a woman, such as Gail Riplinger, and learntheology from a woman.Gail Riplinger is a woman who holds an honorary doctofrom Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the KJB.sell or did sell her books in the Hyles-Anderson Cobookstore.You did send four of your men to meet with her for four hto get her opinion about your teaching. I have a question"Had she agreed with your uninspired opinion of theJames Bible would you have quoted her?"In light of these things, it appears to me that you are moto the left of the stand we, as Fundamentalists, have takethese many years. I am not interested in moving to the leany way. I want to remain firm in my positions on theJames Bible and our Baptist Heritage. I will remain firmy position on music that is Christ honoring and godly. Icontinue to take a stand against perverted Bible versions,music, immodest dress, and ecumenicism. I believe thatime to take a difficult but necessary stand againstmovement to the left. I will not be speaking at Pastor's Sc2009 nor attending.

I will be praying that you will recognizethat your influenstrong and that you will use it to strengthen that which remrather than weaken it.I Reveal: Where Are You?,GregHawkins & Cally ParkiI http://www. wayofthemastenadio.com/podcast/2007/ Inovember-0 I -2007-hour- 1/2 httB: //www.onenew snow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id= I 896 I 8

why make a public issue of the kjb

Documents